2026 (3) TMI 245 - HC - GST

Writ jurisdiction in lieu of a statutory appeal inadmissible where the statutory remedy was not availed and delay is unexplained.

Writ challenge to an order under the GST statute was analysed against the availability of a statutory appeal which prescribes a 90 day filing period; the ... Delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction - requirement to exhaust statutory appellate remedy - reasonableness of delay for invocation of Article 226. Delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction - requirement to exhaust statutory appellate remedy - HELD THAT: - The Court found substantial and unexplained delay in approaching the High Court against an otherwise appealable order. The petitioner did not file an appeal under the statutory remedy available under the Act within the period prescribed by Section 107, and did not explain when it came to know of the impugned order. The contention that a detailed reply to the show cause notice absolved the petitioner from vigilance or amounted to non-communication of the order was rejected since no particulars were furnished as to knowledge of the order. Relying on settled principles that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be invoked with promptitude and within a reasonable period, the court held that a petitioner who, by his own fault, disables himself from availing the statutory remedy cannot ordinarily invoke discretionary relief under Article 226. The existence of arguable merits did not justify interference in view of the delay and failure to pursue the statutory remedy. [Paras 4, 5, 7] Writ petition dismissed for unreasonable delay and failure to avail the statutory appellate remedy; no interference under Article 226. Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demand order on grounds of unexplained and unreasonable delay and the petitioner's failure to pursue the available statutory appeal; the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not exercised in favour of the petitioner. Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, filed after substantial delay and without availing the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act, is maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Analysis: The statutory scheme provides an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prescribes a 90-day period for filing an appeal; invocation of writ jurisdiction in lieu of the statutory remedy is permissible only if the writ is filed within a reasonable period. Delay in approaching the High Court, unexplained or attributable to the petitioner's own inaction, and failure to demonstrate when the petitioner became aware of the impugned order are relevant factors. Where a petitioner by his own fault disables himself from availing the prescribed statutory remedy, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 may not be exercised. The facts show the petitioner waited after receipt of the order and did not pursue the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed time; no satisfactory explanation for the delay or for not monitoring communication of the order has been furnished.Conclusion: The petition is dismissed; the outcome is in favour of the revenue.